NL v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a 25-year-old national from the Shkoder region of Northern Albania, entered the State on 8 August 2016 and immediately applied for international protection. His application was processed under the International Protection Act 2015. After submitting an International Protection Questionnaire and a supplementary questionnaire due to translation errors, the Applicant was interviewed and a report issued. An International Protection Officer recommended refusal of both refugee and subsidiary protection status. The Applicant appealed to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (First Respondent), which affirmed the refusal after multiple hearings. The High Court granted leave for Judicial Review of the Tribunal’s decision.

The Applicant’s claim centers on the murder of his younger brother in 2010 by three men, convicted and imprisoned for the crime. The Applicant fears retaliation due to a local tradition of blood feuds requiring revenge killings, although he personally does not intend to engage in this tradition. He alleges ongoing societal pressure and threats linked to this context, including a hit and run incident he believes was orchestrated against him. The Applicant also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to his brother’s murder.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the First Respondent erred in assessing the Applicant’s well-founded fear of persecution arising from the blood feud tradition and related threats.
2. Whether the First Respondent failed to properly consider evidence and accepted facts, including the hit and run incident and threats to the Applicant’s family.
3. Whether the First Respondent misapplied the standard of proof and legal tests under the International Protection Act 2015 and the Qualifications Directive.
4. Whether the First Respondent lawfully assessed the Applicant’s subsidiary protection claim and the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.
5. Whether procedural fairness and proper consideration of country of origin information were observed.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The First Respondent made material errors of fact and law in assessing the pressure and coercion to take revenge, failing to consider relevant evidence including medical reports and country of origin information.
• The First Respondent unfairly treated the Applicant’s position that he would not engage in revenge, undermining his credibility.
• The First Respondent misapplied the Qualifications Directive and failed to properly apply section 28(7) of the 2015 Act.
• The First Respondent unlawfully excluded relevant accepted facts and failed to assess current and future risks properly, applying an incorrect standard of proof.
• The First Respondent misunderstood the nature and scope of the Applicant’s claim and failed to notify the Applicant of certain country of origin information relied upon.
• The First Respondent erroneously dismissed the hit and run incident and relied improperly on Albania’s designation as a safe country of origin.
• The First Respondent failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision and engaged in excessive delay.

Respondents' Arguments

• The decision is lawful and within the First Respondent’s remit to assess evidence and credibility.
• The First Respondent correctly understood and assessed the Applicant’s claim and evidence, applying the correct burden of proof and fair procedures.
• There was no obligation on the First Respondent to independently investigate documentation submitted.
• The decision is reasoned and not irrational, and the accepted past facts did not amount to past persecution meeting the statutory threshold.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed review of the First Respondent’s decision and found multiple procedural and analytical flaws. The Court identified a fundamental misunderstanding by the First Respondent of the Applicant’s case, particularly regarding the nature of the blood feud claim. The Applicant’s case was that the tradition of blood feuds creates an anticipatory risk that the perpetrators’ families would strike first, not that an active blood feud existed; this subtlety was overlooked.

The Court found that the First Respondent erred in dismissing the hit and run incident from its considerations based on incorrect factual assumptions about the timing of evidence submission. Although the Applicant speculated about the perpetrators, the fact of the incident was accepted and should have been considered in assessing future risk.

The Court also found error in the First Respondent’s treatment of threats made to the Applicant’s father, which were accepted facts but discounted in assessing risk to the Applicant. This reflected a failure to carry forward established facts into the future risk analysis.

Furthermore, the First Respondent made an adverse credibility finding regarding the Applicant’s fear of the perpetrators without properly considering all accepted evidence and circumstances, including the hit and run and threats. This may have unjustly denied the Applicant the benefit of the doubt.

The Court clarified the legal position under the 2015 Act, emphasizing that a finding of past persecution is not a prerequisite for establishing a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Court rejected the Respondents’ submission that past persecution must be established first, noting the rebuttable presumption created by section 28(6) of the Act.

Regarding the standard of proof, the Court confirmed the settled Irish law approach requiring acceptance of past facts on the balance of probabilities with the benefit of doubt, and assessing future risk on the basis of accepted facts. The Court found no error in the standard of proof applied by the First Respondent.

The Court found no error in the First Respondent’s assessment of the pressure from society on the Applicant as not amounting to intense or unrelenting pressure, and no failure to consider medical or country of origin information in this regard.

Other complaints, such as the consideration of a photograph of a politician alleged to be corrupt, delay in the process, and reliance on Albania’s safe country designation, were either unfounded or not determinative.

Holding and Implications

The Court granted an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the First Respondent.

Holding: The First Respondent’s decision was flawed due to misunderstanding the Applicant’s case, factual errors, failure to consider accepted facts in the future risk assessment, and an erroneous adverse credibility finding.

Implications: The decision requires the First Respondent to reconsider the Applicant’s claim properly, taking into account the accepted facts, including the hit and run incident and threats, and correctly applying the legal standards for assessing well-founded fear of persecution and serious harm. No new legal precedent was established beyond clarifying the correct interpretation of the 2015 Act and reinforcing existing standards of proof and assessment of claims.